Canada sets the pace...

There is a shocking and supremely culpable naivete among those Christians of our day who are enamored with the libertarian solution and oppose laws against gambling, fornication, sodomy, adultery, and so forth. Have they ever read or considered Hosea 8:7?

For they have sown the wind, and they will reap the whirlwind.

Do we have to get back to the point where the men of our cities are demanding we turn over our houseguests for sodomitic rape before we look to the law to "restrain evildoers?"

Touchstone is a journal I recommend and subscribe to myself. Here's a piece that might disengage some of us from our stupor.

(Thanks, David.)

Comments

FYI Nova Scotia is a very conservative place with a lot of evangelicals, probably one of the most conservative east of Alberta. The voters have several times voted to maintain the centuries old ban on Sunday shopping that is in efect province wide.

The neighboring province of New Brunswick did just a few weeks ago have a "riot" by angry parents. A local drug dealer was given house arrest for a recent conviction so a group of parents got together and burned down his house! They even blocked the road to keep out the RCMP & firemen until the house was destroyed. This was on the island of Grand Manan in the Bay of Fundy, pop. aprox 3000.

The "vigilanties" are local heroes. The RCMP responded by sending 70 (!) officers to the island to investigate. Local rumor has it that the people involved had started making a list of other criminal types they wanted off the island & were going to move against them in turn.

Libertarians are opposed to the government taking too much power. Unless we live in a theocracy (we do not, by the way) we must learn which battles to pick.

A government that is overly empowered (read: "can make laws prohibiting whatever the majority wants") is in a position to make more bad laws than good as the popular opinion shifts. The libertarians want to promote peace and simultaneously keep the government from having too much power.

If the government does not make rules prohibiting things that Christians perceive as bad, they also cannot make laws condoning things Christians think are bad. Examples include laws that oppress freedom to exercise religion, or laws that would require men and women to kill others to defend their country, or laws encouraging gambling (state lotteries).

Unless you want to start a country whose sole governing text is the Bible--a feat you could never accomplish--maybe you should consider that some other political parties may not be that bad.

Oh, and your argument that if the government does not make laws prohibiting gambling and fornication then we will have a new Sodom is what is known as the "slippery-slope fallacy."

Brady,

I guess it all comes down to deciding what "overly empowered" means. Do you think laws against embezzlement, child molesting, kidnapping and armed robbery represent an "overly empowered" government? Laws against sodomy aren't just "whatever the majority wants"; they're not some whim implemented by the latest Republican Congress. There are many reasons--historical, philosophical, and spiritual--to support the government's restrictions on homosexual behavior. While libertarians share with conservatives the desire for limited government, Christians understand that part of government's role is punitive. Recall what Romans 13 says about this. Don't be so abstract in your thinking that you forget that real souls and real lives are at stake.

David,

Engaging in sodomy does not get one into hell. By the first act of sodomy, a person not forgiven by Christ has a long enough list of sin to qualify for hell. Simply living without Christ will get one into hell very easily. I do not think the government should make a law requiring everyone accept Christ.

Embezzling, child molesting, kidnapping, and armed robbery all harm another. They might even challenge a person's faith ("how could God allow that to happen?"). At the very least, they infringe upon another person's life without that person's consent.

Sodomy is simply adding to a long list of sins, as is any sin that has not been forgiven and covered by Christ's blood. The only people harmed are those willingly engaging in the act. Those sins will be punished in due course, regardless of what the government does.

bpr

Brady wrote, "The only people harmed are those willingly engaging in the act."

It's willfully and childishly naive of you to think that no public consequences follow from private immorality. Where do sodomites go when they need medical treatment? Who pays for that treatment? And do you really want your kids hanging out with drug addicts, even as you campaign for the government to get out of the drug regulation business? I don't. What do you think drug addicts do for money, conjure it up magically in their mobile homes?

Anti-sodomy laws were the rule for a long time, and the question for us was not "Why should the government make anti-sodomy laws," but "Why should we campaign for the nullification of sodomy laws?" Simply saying, "the government shouldn't be involved in private morality" is no answer, because it already was. And when society's atmosphere changes so abruptly, so that people not only no longer think sodomy is wrong, but they think it's right and normal (if you're into that kind of thing), nobody benefits. On the other hand, growing up with a knowledge that some behavior is widely considered immoral may benefit many.

But anyway, you win. The anti-sodomy laws are gone. Government no longer has a say in whether deadly diseases are spread around society. It probably won't ever change back, either. You should be very proud.

>It's willfully and childishly naive of you to think that no public consequences follow from private immorality. Where do sodomites go when they need medical treatment?

The same place us non-sodomites go for medical treatment.

>Who pays for that treatment?

I hope that they do. If they do not, it is only because the government is meddling in other people's affairs, taking money from those who have it and work for it and giving it to others who don't. I really hate it when the government does that, meddling in my affairs and making laws like that.

>And do you really want your kids hanging out with drug addicts, even as you campaign for the government to get out of the drug regulation business?

Kids have been hanging out with drug addicts for a long time. It doesn't seem like the "war on drugs" has been very effective. Maybe instead parents should teach their kids not to do drugs.

>What do you think drug addicts do for money, conjure it up magically in their mobile homes?

A lot of people abuse drugs that aren't just poor, living in mobile homes. But despite that stereotype... I hope they work for it. Actually, I hope they don't do it at all. But if they do, and they steal money, then they should be prosecuted for stealing and harming other people. Just like they are now.

>Government no longer has a say in whether deadly diseases are spread around society.

Yeah, because failure to legislate HOMOSEXUALS is why children are dying of AIDS in Africa and South America. All those procreating gays...

I'm sure that here in the USA, only gay people have AIDS, so if we legislate their bedroom behavior then the deadly disease will no longer spread. We need forward thinkers like that writing laws to protect our children.

bpr

Like I said, you win, Brady.

But why so bitter, resentful and angry about it? You ought to be happy.

Add new comment